The default position...

[lstan135]

Yes. That would be exactly what implicitly lacking a belief is saying.

You are correct.

Which is why he said "A rock, BY DEFINITION "lacks" all belief"
What you just posted agrees with that completely.

Thank you for acknowledging my most common sense answer.

 

[leibowde84]

So is everything that's cannot think or breathe or rationalise.

The term "atheist" only applies to people, so not exactly. You could say that a rock is "atheistic", as it lacks all beliefs (including belief in the existence of God), but I fail to see why anyone would do that.

"Atheism", by definition, is merely the absence of "theism". Both are extremely general terms. Under theism there is polytheism, monotheism, deism, etc. Under "atheism" there is implicit atheism (as with babies), explicit atheism (the declaration that one does not believe in God), strong atheism (the claim that God does not or cannot exist), etc.

They are general terms for a reason. Not much is claimed with either term.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Thank you for acknowledging my most common sense answer.

Sure. but you completely contradict yourself, which is why I'm asking for clarification.

Same to u, my friend. A rock is just a rock. How can it lack belief? That''s real nonsense isn't it?

here you're saying a rock can't lack a belief.

So is everything that's cannot think or breathe or rationalise.

Here you're agreeing that a rock, and everything else that cannot think, lacks a belief...

 

[Awkward Fingers]

The term "atheist" only applies to people, so not exactly. You could say that a rock is "atheistic", as it lacks all beliefs (including belief in the existence of God), but I fail to see why anyone would do that.

"Atheism", by definition, is merely the absence of "theism". Both are extremely general terms. Under theism there is polytheism, monotheism, deism, etc. Under "atheism" there is implicit atheism (as with babies), explicit atheism (the declaration that one does not believe in God), strong atheism (the claim that God does not or cannot exist), etc.

They are general terms for a reason. Not much is claimed with either term.

I'd disagree. I don't see anything in the term implicit that limits it to people.
..I DO agree that implicit atheism, in things that CANNOT be explicitly atheist, is pretty much useless other than maybe as some part of a thought practice.

But I don't see how that would limit it, it puts it as impractical, or useless, but not incorrect.

 

[lstan135]

Thank you for acknowledging my most common sense answer.

So is everything that's cannot think or breathe or rationalise.

 

[leibowde84]

I'd disagree. I don't see anything in the term implicit that limits it to people.
..I DO agree that implicit atheism, in things that CANNOT be explicitly atheist, is pretty much useless other than maybe as some part of a thought practice.

But I don't see how that would limit it, it puts it as impractical, or useless, but not incorrect.

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Still not getting your point.

Yes, I agree with your later statement, that things that cannot think, cannot have a belief..
however that directly contradicts your statement where you said rocks CAN'T lack a belief.
You still haven't clarified, or even acknowledged, that you see the problem between your two statements.

 

[leibowde84]

Still not getting your point.

Yes, I agree with your later statement, that things that cannot think, cannot have a belief..
however that directly contradicts your statement where you said rocks CAN'T lack a belief.
You still haven't clarified, or even acknowledged, that you see the problem between your two statements.

For some reason, many think that "lack" in this context means an insufficient or "lacking" amount of something. In actuality, that would make absolutely no sense, as an "atheist" would be one who believes in God but just not enough. Right?

 

[Awkward Fingers]

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

But atheistic, or having the properties of atheism, or atheist, IS applied to objects.
I will concede to you atheist, but in return Ill goal shift, and keep atheistic.

Rocks are implicitly atheistic, how's that?
hmm may have to think on this for one moment, on how I want to word it.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

For some reason, many think that "lack" in this context means an insufficient or "lacking" amount of something. In actuality, that would make absolutely no sense, as an "atheist" would be one who believes in God but just not enough. Right?

True, and I would consider that a misuse of the word.
I'm hoping he clarifies, I've asked him twice now, or so.

 

[lstan135]

What I meant was they don't lack. They just don't have the capacity to think.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I've seen people argue the difference between "atheist" and "atheistic".

The basis of which concludes that the term "atheist" applies as a primary.
And that "atheistic" applies as a secondary.

Example: Atheist - Can recognize their lack of a God belief.
Such as not knowing if a God is real.
Such as Denying the possibility of a God being real.

Example: Atheistic - Is an add on that simply applies secondly.
Such as a person who identifies as only Muslim is atheistic to all other God beliefs.
Such as an inanimate object, that of which cannot disagree, is default atheistic.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with that, just throwing it out there for possible reference.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

What I meant was they don't lack. They just don't have the capacity to think.

So, as guessed in post 1088 by leibowde84, then

 

[leibowde84]

But atheistic, or having the properties of atheism, or atheist, IS applied to objects.
I will concede to you atheist, but in return Ill goal shift, and keep atheistic.

Rocks are implicitly atheistic, how's that?
hmm may have to think on this for one moment, on how I want to word it.

That's pretty good. Inanimate objects are implicitly atheistic.

 

[leibowde84]

What I meant was they don't lack. They just don't have the capacity to think.

By definition, any entity that doesn't have the ability to believe "lacks" belief in everything.

 

[Shad]

Same to u, my friend. A rock is just a rock. How can it lack belief? That''s real nonsense isn't it?

Atheism is a lack of belief in/of theism
Rocks lack a belief in/of theism.
Therefore rocks are atheists.

It is simple logic. Hence why the claim atheism is a "lack of belief" rather than a rejection of a claim, theism, is nonsensical.

 

[leibowde84]

Atheism is a lack of belief in/of theism
Rocks lack a belief in/of theism.
Therefore rocks are atheists.

It is simple logic. Hence why the claim atheism is a "lack of belief" rather than a rejection of a claim, theism, is nonsensical.

I think the issue lies with both the term "atheist" and it's suffix, "-ist" usually refer only to people. Your logic is fine, but I think "atheistic" would be a better word choice.

 

[Shad]

The term "atheist" only applies to people, so not exactly. You could say that a rock is "atheistic", as it lacks all beliefs (including belief in the existence of God), but I fail to see why anyone would do that.

Not a single definition provided by anyone has the requirement of people in regards to atheism. This is why my argument from reductio ad absurdum shows such a definition to be fallacious.

"Atheism", by definition, is merely the absence of "theism". Both are extremely general terms. Under theism there is polytheism, monotheism, deism, etc. Under "atheism" there is implicit atheism (as with babies), explicit atheism (the declaration that one does not believe in God), strong atheism (the claim that God does not or cannot exist), etc.

Nope, every argument for atheism has been on the grounds of rejection of theism and it's claims or based on naturalism in philosophy. The first atheist used naturalism as part of his argument. You are spouting counter-apologetics in which people attempt to avoid their burden of proof thus justification for their stance.

 

[Shad]

I think the issue lies with both the term "atheist" and it's suffix, "-ist" usually refer only to people. Your logic is fine, but I think "atheistic" would be a better word choice.

No it is assumed to refer to people but it is actually about a belief system, theism and not theism. Yet animals have rough belief systems as demonstrated by pattern errors.

A deer hears a bush rustle. The deer will either assume the sound was created by a predator, belief A, or the sound was created by a non-predator, belief B. Hence why animals prey animals will flee from noises even if there is no predator as belief A results a greater chance of survival than B. This is an observed reaction of many prey animals.

 

[Deathbydefault]

No it is assumed to refer to people but it is actually about a belief system, theism and not theism.

Actually, Atheism is what is assumed to refer to people but is truly about a belief system.
Atheist's subscribe to that belief system.

So logically, "atheist" does refer to people.